There's a basement

Tuesday, 2 December 2014

Feminism's war against men

Penile guilt

So these four Indian men have admitted to be ashamed of having a penis. Chang even wishes he was a woman! They are apologising to the feminine for the all the rapes and patriachy by men, thus taking the notion of collective guilt to new heights. But hold on aren't these the same people who tell us how "all muslims are not terrorists and islam has nothing to do with terror" and how terrorism is just a few individuals misusing a "religion of peace", all this even when few people having ever suggested all muslims are terrorists, most have called for criticising islamist doctrines which truth be told is the case with all monotheistic religions: violence, conversion, conquering are just the characteristics.

The same feminists who talk of individual actions in the terror discussion have decided that in intergender dynamics all men are always guilty and that collective responsibility should be the norm. Doesn't matter how specific a case of rape it is, all "men are pigs" and all of us are rapists as well. Once someone yelled on TimesNow that "this nation is at war with women". We'll see who has waged war further in this post. And they're not likely to apologize for it either but rather proud of revenge. Let's go in to details.

"Promises"

India has a very special law which states if a man promises marriage and has sexual intercourse with a woman and later the relationship sours and breaks-up that would be rape! Read it again. The woman can literally file an FIR against you for rape and throw you in jail, such is the power granted to them by laws which feminists have pushed for. Of course it goes without saying there's no inverse here for the man, the woman can break off and the man can do nothing about it. Many women across the country have used this as a tool to force marriage and revenge. The courts have taken note of this misuse of law but still there's no debate being pushed for, neither by the media nor by the political class for the former, women are the prime consumers of media, advertising, cosmetic industry while for the latter the women have become a considerable votebank.

Let's devote a little time to understand why this law is outright stupidity. In course of relationships, couples do make certain committements and "promises" but as is human life, circumstances change and relationships come to an end. Feminists who are blinded by revenge against men for patriachy of the last thousands of years want to paint this with the brush that "men fool and use women" for sex. Certainly that happens and it happens both ways, the laws have no role to enter personal relationships like this and the interference has just played into the hands of really broken women who use it for personal vendetta.

On top of that the very feminists who want women to be "independent, smart and forward thinking" also want to depict women as naive and innocent children who just fall for "promises" and follow you to the bedroom. They want to change the horses mid race to suit their agenda. As we shall below how the champions of "working and career oriented ambitious women" want to arm women with laws to destroy men financially in event of a divorce.

"women don't want your money" (just 50%!)

So women are postponing their divorce proceedings to avail our government's charity to them in event of a divorce by seizing away the man's 50% inherited wealth. Here's what one woman waiting for a divorce has to say in DNA:

Divorce lawyer Mrunalini Deshmukh says a few of her female clients, especially those from affluent families, are adopting the wait-and-watch approach before rushing for a divorce. “They stand to gain a lot more from the husband’s property if the Bill in its current form becomes an Act,” she said. “You hurt the person where it hurts him the most, and money plays an important role.”

Firstly let's bring up alimony for a sec, it's weird that only the wife gets the alimony. And what's interesting is the subconscious unspoken rule in culture to never point it out, the man doing so is "not man enough!". HAHA! look at how they set the game and make the rules too.

If fact the feminist movement scoffs at men for paying on dates, it's almost an insult to these women—"you can't buy a woman's love", "women can pay for themeselves", "i don't need a man to pay for me", "i don't want your money I got my own!"..oh the list just goes on. And today every women's organisation supports the bill to rip men off and destroy them financially in event of a divorce. And here's the sweet taste of revenge:

no sorry?

Also note there's no pre-nuptial agreement system in India as in the west. In today's feminist poisoned environment a pre-nup is your best bet against ending up on the street because the girl "just didn't feel in love anymore" or "you weren't the one". If you are an educated man in urban India, there's a high chance you will marry an educated woman and that my friends is all the more risk, of course on this they will throw the "men are scared of powerful independent women" feminist meme at you which of course is a strawman, but yes when the woman has the legal power to cheat on you at work, then initiate divorce and take half of what you own (or even inherited if the new law becomes a reality), scared you must be. The educated empowered women have long been the foot-soldiers of feminism, all you have to do follow their facebook status updates for all videos, memes and more of how women are empowered. In the end the culture today which is effectively teaching girls straight out of school "to divorce him right there and find happiness" and "never compromise on your happiness" marriage seems nothing less than a bad investment.

Of course I hear a lot many "this is just paranoia, it would never happen to me"..which I do grant is the right attitude to have in life regarding such awful calamities like an deadly earthquake/ a hyper-feminist wife/GF but at the same time I think it was Sheldon cooper who said "everyone says it'll never happen until it does".

And if and when a prenup system is ever proposed be prepared to hear them yell on the TV about how "anti-women" the law would be. The usual last resort then is taken in the "child care" argument. A childcare fund can be easily setup between the couple and an amount can be calculated for it, it is no argument to handover 50% of inherited wealth to the wife! And since child custody is one of the most important issues in an divorce, it's all the better to settle them in advance.

In the next part we will look at feminist narratives like "thousands of years of patriachy" and who these feminists really are and look deep into the ideology itself.